Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale: Good afternoon. Let us try to hit the ground running.Clause 71 Application for club premises certificate

Clause 71 - Application for club premises certificate

Amendment made: No. 17, in 
clause 71, page 41, line 36, at end insert— 
 '( ) where the relevant qualifying club activities include the supply of alcohol, whether the supplies are proposed to be for consumption on the premises or both on and off the premises,'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: It is nice to start at this time in the afternoon rather than earlier—a time to which some of us find it difficult to adjust. In introducing these two amendments, I wish to say—

Roger Gale: Order. We are about to debate the proposal that clause 71, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to debate clause 71?

Andrew Turner: I have nothing to say about clause 71.
 Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 - Determination of application

Amendments made: No. 18, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 17, after 'to', insert— 
 '(a) '. 
No. 19, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 18, after 'application', insert ', and 
 (b) section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(2) to (5)'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 352, in
clause 72, page 42, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In subsection (3) ''hearing'' may, where the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations agree, include exchange of written representations.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 353, in
clause 72, page 42, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(3B) Where a person who has made representations has given notice that, for reasons of special circumstances including but not limited to language, disability or responsibility as a carer or as an employee, a hearing should be conducted other than in the normal manner for that authority, the licensing authority shall take reasonable steps to accommodate those special circumstances.'.

Andrew Turner: Thank you, Mr. Gale. Clearly, the delirious pleasure of having almost a whole day to spend before considering the Bill has caught up with me. These two amendments invite the Government to
 express their view on the guidance that Ministers intend to provide about the nature of the hearings and to say how prescriptive they will be about them. The first amendment is about whether the word ''hearing'' is to be taken literally, or whether it could include what is meant when we say that a planning inspector ''hears'' an inquiry that is undertaken by an exchange of written representations.
 When planning inspectors hold local inquiries, they do not necessarily assemble all the witnesses for and against a specific planning application in a room and hear the case for and against. They have the opportunity to undertake the inquiry by means of written representation. That method has several benefits and disbenefits. Among the benefits is the fact that the inquiry can be conducted at a distance. For example, it would not be necessary for a planning inspector to travel to a distant part of the country. Similarly, if the amendment were accepted, or if the Government intended to make such arrangements in their guidance, it would not be necessary for a licensing committee to travel to a distant part of a local authority area. 
 Many local authorities cover relatively small areas, and it is not difficult for people to travel from one end of them to the other. Other areas are larger, however. My local authority area is by no means the largest in the country, but it is still 26 miles from Totland to Bembridge, and a councillor who represented Totland would have to travel to the centre of the island. 
 Under amendment No. 353, when 
''the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations''
 so agreed, the hearing could take place by means of an ''exchange of written representations''. The Government have accepted the general formula when there is agreement that, for example, nothing further needs to be done to an application before it is approved. They have accepted that the agreement of the authority, the applicant and each person who has made representations is sufficient reason for a hearing not to take place. 
 I propose that there be a halfway house. A full hearing would perhaps assemble many members of a licensing committee or the sub-committee of a licensing authority, some officers, many representatives of those making representations, and, of course, the applicant. It might also bring together lawyers and miscellaneous other people who draw their incomes from the promotion of, or opposition to, such proposals. The amendment would allow a written exchange instead of a meeting. That would often mean that lawyers did not have a long and costly journey before they could take part. 
 With amendment No. 353, I am seeking the Government's view on whether a hearing—in the more literal sense of the word—should automatically be held where the local authority deems appropriate. That may be in a town or county hall or at a council office, perhaps some distance from many of those making representations. Under the amendment, if a person who had made representations gave notice of special circumstances that made it more convenient for 
 them for the hearing to be conducted elsewhere, the local authority would be required to 
''take reasonable steps to accommodate those special circumstances.''
 Many local authorities do not have one literal centre where all local hearings take place, but others do. In some local authorities, the council offices are spread around the area, although all the meetings are held in one place. That is the case in my constituency. The amendment begins: 
''Where a person who has made representations has given notice that, for reasons of special circumstances''—
 and I set out some examples of such circumstances, one of which might be language difficulties. Different languages might be used in parts of the local authority area. Disability, too, might make it difficult for some to gain access not just to the premises but to the very town in which the local authority usually held its meetings. In such cases it might be appropriate, for the hearing to be held more locally; that would be more for the convenience of those making representations than for that of the local authority. 
 Some people might find it difficult to get time off work to attend, and those with responsibilities as carers might not be able to attend a meeting that took place during the working day. It might be appropriate for them to ask the local authority to arrange for the meeting to take place outside normal working hours, if possible. The reverse might be the case in an area where there are many elderly people who prefer not to go out after dark, perhaps because of the very problems—congestion in the streets, noise, and the threat, perceived or real, of violence—that the Bill is designed to overcome. 
 Does the Minister intend his guidance on the conduct of the hearings to allow a hearing to take place by means of written representation, and would he require the local authority to take steps to accommodate those in special circumstances? If he can give those assurances, we may be able to cut this debate short.

Mark Field: I shall speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend's amendments. He makes a valid point about geography. A local authority area might be dozens of miles across, and it might be difficult to have a personal hearing.
 My hon. Friend drew an analogy in relation to planning committee meetings. That is a curiosity that I have found even within the confines of two neighbouring London boroughs—the one on which I served as a councillor, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the one that I currently represent in Parliament, the City of Westminster. They have very different policies on planning meetings. In Kensington and Chelsea, there is an automatic right for a would-be objector to have a public hearing at a planning meeting—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen who are talking are discussing the
 intricacies of clause 72, but I would be grateful if they would do so out of my earshot.

Mark Field: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I appreciate that the workings of two London boroughs are of great interest to everybody, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
 To return to my point, in Westminster there is no right for an objector to have a private hearing, and matters are dealt with through written representations alone. 
 As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is correct that there should be an onus on the authority to have a fully-fledged hearing: the Government's thinking recognises that. However, where all parties are happy to deal with a matter simply by written representations, to do so makes sense. That is certainly the case from the perspective of someone who has served on a local authority, as I, and many other Committee members, have, because we will all recall how, when a meeting goes on late into the night—until about 10 o'clock or 10.15—and when there is a massive 150-page bundle of papers to be dealt with, it is all too easy for important matters to go through on the nod, which is wrong. The protection that the Government set out in subsection (3) should apply unless all parties agree, as a default, to have fully-fledged written representations. 
 On the other amendment, I support what my hon. Friend said about those with special circumstances, particularly the physically or mentally disabled. That consideration would also apply where there are language difficulties throughout urban Britain, as well as in rural areas. 
 I hope that the Government will give some thought to this. It is a sensible compromise, and I am not moving away from the idea that in the normal course of events there should be a fully-fledged licensing hearing at which such matters would be discussed.

Mark Hoban: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Gale, following the break in the Committee's deliberations.
 I support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), because the requirement to hold a public hearing could be seen by many as unduly burdensome on the council, the applicants and those making representations against an application for a premises licence. It is more in the interests of all concerned that where possible, people simply submit representations, rather than have to turn up and present their case to the committee. 
 In Fareham people have the right to make public their objections to a planning application: three people can make a deputation and they are allowed to speak for three minutes each. That works effectively. However, many objections to planning applications are made in writing. Having written to the council, such people do not see the need to make their case in public; they are happy to leave their representations lying on the table, knowing that the council officers will have made the planning committee aware of them before the meeting. Where appropriate, only written representations should be considered necessary, 
 because otherwise people will have to be brought together at a time convenient to the applicant, the committee and those who have made the representations. 
 To expedite the entire process of applying for a licence, it would be in the Government's interests to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

Kim Howells: Clause 72 sets out the procedures for determining an application for a club premises certificate. They closely mirror the equivalent procedure set out in clause 19 for determining an application for a premises licence. As we have heard, amendment No. 352 seeks to make it explicit that a hearing may take the form of an exchange of written representations if each person who has made representations agrees.
 The amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (3) provides that if the licensing authority, 
''the applicant and each person who has made such representations agree that a hearing is unnecessary'',
 the licensing authority is not compelled to hold one, but that does not mean that the representations will not be considered. We have heard parallels drawn with planning procedures in some local authorities. However, a licensing authority may still consider any relevant representations received and, having regard to those, take such steps it considers necessary for the promotion of its licensing objectives. The Bill already achieves what the amendment seeks; I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 353 would require a licensing authority, when holding a hearing, to take reasonable steps to accommodate any special circumstances of the participants, 
''including but not limited to language, disability or responsibility as a carer or as an employee''.
 I confirm, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that I would be happy to provide guidance to the licensing authorities to ensure that if it were necessary for a local resident or club member to give evidence and that person required an interpreter,one should be available.

Malcolm Moss: Does the Bill define what constitutes a hearing? Are we talking about all of the licensing committee or a part of it? What would the quorum be? In the interests of consistency, should not the same people evaluate similar circumstances at each hearing, so that a common approach is taken towards people who come to them?

Kim Howells: I agree that there is nothing more infuriating than having constantly to deal with different people in a local authority or other agency—to have to bring them up to speed and hear people say, ''We can't find your file,'' or ''We didn't receive that letter.'' We have, as Members of Parliament, heard such stories a thousand times. Nevertheless, clause 180 is clear about the need for the continuity described by the hon. Gentleman. I
 agree that there ought to be a consistent approach to ensure that the licensing authority deals swiftly and efficiently with cases that come before it.
 I was asked about smaller-scale hearings. The Bill already provides for matters, including hearings, to be discharged by sub-committees consisting of three members of the licensing committee. I am sure that hon. Members recall that, because we discussed it at some length. Clause 180 provides for regulations to be made governing the terms of any hearings; those could cover the processes, time limits and arrangements for the disclosure of evidence. That would ensure that people could be properly represented by lawyers, if they so chose. The regulations will ensure that there is fairness, propriety and consistency. In any other matters, the licensing authority may regulate its own procedure. 
 The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) asked about late hearings. That is an important point. I have heard horror stories about planning committees meeting late at night, long after objectors have gone to bed. We must ensure that the guidance highlights the need for a sensible approach to such matters, which, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, must be fair to all. 
 I certainly appreciate the intention behind the amendment. It is laudable and closely coincides with the aims and achievements of the Government's equality policy during the past six years. However, we need to bear in mind that this is a licensing Bill, not an equality Bill. Equality issues apply to all aspects of public life, and it is not sensible to try to address them in a piecemeal fashion. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight knows, we have been continually active in addressing equality issues across the piece. For example, the Government have incorporated the implementation of the Commission for Racial Equality's ''Equality standard for local government'' into best value performance indicators for local authorities. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, because we have spoken about it together before. 
 The equality standard is designed to ensure that local authorities consider issues such as gender, race, disability and other equality issues at all levels of council policy and practice. It is a framework to help local authorities introduce a comprehensive and systematic approach to equality issues. It allows the same framework to be used for addressing all disadvantaged groups, but recognises the view that race, gender and disability cannot be dealt with as a single issue, and that barriers will vary. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight told us, each strand requires separate treatment.

Andrew Turner: Can the Minister confirm that the policies to which he refers specifically require local authorities to take account of the responsibilities that make it difficult for a carer, or an employee, to attend meetings in working hours?

Kim Howells: I think that I have given the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We expect the needs of those important groups of people—they often are
 groups, not just individuals—to be taken care of. As the hon. Gentleman says, they may have limitations on their time, for example.
 On the point raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), the fact that a hearing is held does not compel people to attend if they have made written representations. The Bill simply provides that the licensing committee must hold a hearing. The hon. Gentleman drew parallels with other functions of local government where that is the case, and the Government expect it to be the case here.

Andrew Turner: I am happy to note the Minister's assurances. Clause 72 mirrors an earlier clause, and the fact that he thinks that subsection (3) covers my first amendment is welcome. I am also grateful for his confirmation that he will give guidance on what should happen when it is necessary to provide an interpreter, and that the objections to the timetable of those who find attending difficult owing to work or care responsibilities will taken account of. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 20, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 27, after second 'to', insert— 
 '(i) '.
 No. 21, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 29, after 'objectives', insert ', and 
 (ii) section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(2) to (5)'.
 No. 22, in 
clause 72, page 42, line 32, at end insert— 
 '( ) Subsections (2) and (3)(b) are subject to section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(1) (certificate may authorise off-supplies only if it authorises on-supplies).'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 358, in
clause 72, page 43, line 10, at end add— 
 '(10) Nothing in this or the foregoing section shall require either an applicant to apply for or a licensing authority to determine a club premises certificate and a premises licence separately. 
 (11) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provisions as are necessary to enable an applicant to apply for or a licensing authority to determine a club premises certificate and a premises licence concurrently.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 354, in 
clause 82, page 46, line 27, at end insert— 
 '(1A) For the purpose of this section ''variation of the certificate'' includes applying for or applying to vary a premises licence in respect of the same premises.'.
 Amendment No. 355, in 
clause 82, page 46, line 28, leave out 'Subsection (1) is' and insert 
 'Subsections (1) and (1A) are'.
 Amendment No. 356, in 
clause 82, page 46, line 32, after 'certificate', insert 
 '(and, where one is the subject of the application, the premises licence)'.
 Amendment No. 357, in 
clause 82, page 46, line 33, at end insert 
 'or the licence, or both'.

Andrew Turner: These amendments develop something that I confess I worked out for myself only during our last sitting. It is possible—indeed, it is likely in many circumstances—that the same premises will require both a club certificate and a premises licence. It might therefore be appropriate for it to be made clear that the applicant may apply for, and the authority may determine whether to give, a club premises certificate and a premises licence concurrently. In other words, those two things can happen through the same process rather than through parallel processes, and at the same hearing and through the same representation process, rather than through two separate representation processes. In particular, where the same areas of the same building are concerned, it seems absurd to have two separate processes running, without their having to have regard to each other by law.
 The amendment is simple. It makes it clear, in case that should be necessary, that nothing in clause 71 or 72 requires the applicant or the licensing authority to deal with the two different types of animal separately. I would not normally propose to give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers, but in view of where we are in our consideration of the Bill, there is little alternative. My proposed new subsection (11) allows the Secretary of State 
''to make such provisions as are necessary to enable an applicant to apply for or a licensing authority to determine a club premises certificate and a premises licence concurrently.''
 Amendments Nos. 354 to 357 seek merely to amend clause 82 to give effect to the proposals that I have already outlined.

Kim Howells: There are circumstances in which a club may wish to apply both for a club premises certificate and a premises licence in respect of the same premises. The Bill as drafted does not prevent that, nor does it prevent the licensing committee from considering the two applications simultaneously. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort. However, it remains the case that separate applications must be made, although some documentation, such as the plan of the premises, may in some circumstances be common to both applications.
 As I have explained to the Committee previously, clubs are considered separately under the Bill because different considerations arise. I hope that I have made it clear that clubs are essentially private premises to which public access is controlled, and where alcohol is generally supplied otherwise than for profit. For those reasons, and to reflect the current position of clubs under the 1964 Act, the system set out in part 4 of the Bill treats clubs differently. Clubs that meet the various qualifying conditions can apply for a certificate authorising the carrying on of qualifying club activities. In addition, applications for club premises certificates authorising the supply of alcohol need not specify a designated premises supervisor. That is different from the arrangements for licensed premises. 
 Furthermore, it is likely that a club premises certificate and a premises licence covering the same premises will cover different licensable activities or circumstances relating to qualifying club activities and licensable activities. If they did not, there would be little point in having both a certificate and a premises licence for the same premises. Even where the premises licence covered, for example, the sale of alcohol in exactly the same conditions and during the same hours as the supply of alcohol under the club premises certificate, the application for the premises licence would still need to specify the designated premises supervisor for the premises. 
 In short, applications for premises licences, for club premises certificates and for the variations of those that could follow later will in many cases have to be distinct documents and will raise different considerations. They should therefore remain distinct, although there is nothing to stop licensing committees considering applications for premises licences and club premises certificates at the same time, or the same documentation being submitted to cover both applications where appropriate. 
 The Bill's approach to clubs, which seeks to preserve their special status under existing legislation, has been discussed and agreed with the club movement. I share that movement's aim of keeping bureaucracy to a minimum. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees with that. However, it is not appropriate for the two application processes to be combined into one to the extent suggested in the amendments—although I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is actually saying that they should be, and I am sure that he will let us know about that. The issues that arise differ in important respects. I hope that in the light of the reassurances that I have given, and the explanation of why the issues are different, the amendments will be withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I assure the Minister that it is my intention not that the two processes should be combined, but that they could be combined. We are in danger of legislating for the most difficult cases, while having inadequate regard for the circumstances of small clubs. The Minister emphasised the need for alcohol licences, and I understand that. In many cases, although club premises are used to sell alcohol to their members, it would not be in their interests to have a widespread and competing trade for the sale of alcohol to non-members. That would deter people from joining the club in the first place. What might be provided for is the occasional letting of rooms to, for instance, a dominoes club or other organisation of that kind. It would be reasonable, in those circumstances, to apply for an alcohol licence and, therefore, a premises licence. There would also be a requirement to appoint a designated premises supervisor, who could be the steward of the club, but there is no requirement for that to be the case. That would not be a major part of the club's activity, but it would mean that to have to make separate applications would be an additional bureaucratic effort, despite what the Minister says.
 In our last sitting, I cited the example of the Freshwater Conservative club in my constituency, 
 which often holds discos for young people. A licence is required to hold a disco and it is not possible to do so on a club premises certificate if the patrons are not members of the club. The club therefore has to acquire a premises licence, although it does not need to provide a dedicated premises supervisor, as I understand it, because it is not proposing to sell alcohol to the young people. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the request for a licence could be tagged on to the club certificate in an application, rather than be the subject of a separate application. It would be a means of reducing the amount of bureaucracy. It would also be a means of reducing cost, because a small and not unduly wealthy club may wish to make a single application and pay a single fee. That may be a consideration. 
 I welcome the Minister's confirmation that there is no requirement for the local authority to consider the applications separately. They can, if they choose, consider them together. However, I am disappointed that the Minister does not feel that it is possible to permit a single application to embrace both sorts of licence. I see from his demeanour that that is the position that he holds. In the circumstances, I do not suppose that he will change that position for my benefit this afternoon.

Kim Howells: I cannot resist it. I was not going to tell the Committee this, but it is time for a confession. It may be helpful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to learn that the Government originally considered a single procedure for clubs and licensed premises. However, the clubs movement, including Conservative and Labour clubs—I am not certain about the position of Liberal clubs—pressed for a separate system that preserved their unique arrangements. We were persuaded that separation should be preserved. It is, therefore, a natural consequence of the club movement's preferences that the Bill is drafted in that way. I do not know what the views of Freshwater Conservative club were. I did not notice the club when I stayed in Freshwater in the west of the hon. Gentleman's constituency—very delightful, it was, too. Perhaps, it did not contribute to the debate when policy was being formed by the club movement, but that was the movement's view.

Andrew Turner: Who can argue with the combined might of those two wonderful movements? I am happy to beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I believe that this is the opportunity to reflect on a comment that the Minister made about it not being necessary, when determining whether it is appropriate for a club to sell alcohol, for the club to have a designated premises supervisor. Nowhere else could I raise the matter without having to table an amendment.
 It is clear that pubs require the licence holder or a designated premises supervisor to be there. When we discussed the requirements on a village hall or church hall that sought to be licensed, we learned that not 
 only would the venue need a premises licence, but a member of the committee had to have a personal licence. However, it is clearly part of the lighter-touch regulation of qualifying clubs that no premises supervisor need be designated, nor need anyone have a personal licence. So there is a mismatch in the treatment of pubs, community halls, church halls and—in the middle—clubs. Can we have on record the reason for the lighter-touch regime? We heard in previous debates about the primacy of the steward in arranging clubs and providing alcohol and the pivotal role that a steward can play in making a club good or bad. It is worth knowing why it is not necessary for a steward to have a personal licence or to be a designated premises supervisor.

Kim Howells: I am glad that the hon. Member for Fareham has given me an opportunity to explain the clause at greater length, because it is important to define the key differences—he alluded to some of them—between a licensed premises and a club. Clubs are important parts of our society. The club secretary will discharge the administrative duties. The Committee has discussed the importance of the police, the licensing body or the responsible body being able to ask someone, ''Who is in charge here? Where are the rules?'' We also discussed the role and status of the secretary.
 The certificate must be granted only subject to such conditions as are consistent with the club operating schedule, unless relevant representations are made in respect of the application for that certificate. Where relevant representations are received, the licensing authority must hold a hearing. People have to be able to represent the club; it has to be clear that it has responsible authorities. However, that case is different from that of the designated premises supervisor; the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that. 
 The test for what amounts to relevant representations is set out in the clause—that is why it is important. It requires that representations should be made in time by an interested party or a responsible authority, which is defined in clause 69, and that they should relate to the likely effect of the granting of the certificate on the promotion of the licensing objectives. Just as in the case of licensed premises, where representations are made by interested parties, if the licensing authority determines that they are vexatious or frivolous or a repeat of something heard earlier, it can refuse to take them seriously and to hold a hearing. It has to explain to those who have sent in the representations or concerns why it has done so, and it has to be able to explain the reasons for its decisions to the interested parties. 
 If relevant representations are made when the hearing is held, or where it has been dispensed with by agreement, the licensing authority must grant the certificate, if it considers it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that the same thing would apply to a licensed premises. It must grant that certificate subject to the conditions that are consistent with a club operating schedule modified as the authority considers 
 necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. It must exclude any of the club activities applied for, or reject the application. 
 Different conditions may be imposed in relation to different parts of the premises or in respect of different qualifying club activities. By setting out clearly the way in which an application for a club premises certificate must be treated, both when relevant representations have been made about it or when they have not, the clause reflects the aim throughout the Bill of striking a fair balance between the industry and those affected by it. It provides a simple administrative procedure for applications where appropriate, and greater scrutiny when needed. 
 I turn to the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end about the question of who becomes responsible. He is right to talk about the special place of the steward, who could be an employee and a member of the club. If he or she is a member, that imposes special conditions on the role that he or she may play in selling alcohol to club members in relation to the generation of private profit. The club secretary is key to the matter. The responsibilities and role of the club secretary are important in reflecting the decisions taken by the club committee. 
 Clubs are different from licensed premises. The two institutions are very different and I am not sure whether I have made that clear to the hon. Gentleman. The premises supervisor may be an employee of a big pub chain. He may be an owner-occupier, or a tenant of a licensed premises, but he is different from the secretary of a club who, after all, is acting on the decisions taken by the club committee. That is why clubs are different from licensed premises and why the licensed premises supervisor is a different creature from the secretary or the steward.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I can see what he is driving at and why there is no requirement on the part of the steward or club secretary to have a personal licence. My understanding of his argument is that the secretary and the club committee are expected to be so intimately bound up with the running of the premises that the nature of the relationship is very different to that of a big pub company or an individual licensed premises. That explanation is entirely satisfactory.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Prohibited conditions: associate members

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 359, in
clause 73, page 43, line 12, at beginning insert 
 'Save as provided in subsection (3),'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 360, in 
clause 73, page 43, line 17, at beginning insert 
 'Save as provided in subsection (3),'.
 Amendment No. 361, in 
clause 73, page 43, line 22, at end add— 
 '(3) ''Guest'' in this section shall not include anyone who has paid a member for introduction into the club.'.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) referred in an earlier sitting to an absence of a definition in the Bill of the word ''guest''. I thought about that when I considered the clause. I shall refer later to clause 191, which contains a large number of references to definitions, but the clause is not terribly helpful in this case. In the left hand column, headed ''Expression'', it refers to ''guest'', and in the right hand column, headed ''Interpretation provision'', it states ''section 67''.
 If I introduced someone, as my guest, into a club of which I was a member, I would not expect them to pay me for the privilege, nor would I expect them to pay me or to pay across the bar for any of the drinks, other refreshments or entertainments that they enjoyed while they were my guest in that club. On the other hand, the expression ''guest'' can be used by an hotelier to describe someone who would indeed pay for the entertainment, food and drink that he enjoyed while on the hotel premises. What is the definition of guest? Clause 67 is even less helpful than clause 191. The definition in clause 67 forms a perfect circle, saying: 
''Any reference . . . to a guest . . . includes a reference to . . . a guest of an associate member of the club.''
 That is not what I would call a definition. What is a guest? Is it someone introduced on payment of a fee to the member providing the introduction? 
Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner: The Minister shakes his head. Is it possible, for example, for a club to ask a guest to pay an introduction fee to the club rather than to an individual member?
Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner: The Minister shakes his head again. I am interested in that, because many Conservative clubs do in fact require a guest to pay an introduction fee not to the member introducing them but to the club to which they are introduced.

Kim Howells: I am fascinated to hear that there are Conservative clubs that impose a charge on guests. Presumably, those are guests of members of the Conservative club or of a club affiliated to it, or of a club to which the Conservative club concerned is affiliated. I do not know if we are talking about Freshwater again, but there is nothing to prevent that club, in its standing orders or rules, from charging anyone coming in under such circumstances if they see fit. However, we would not prescribe that and I am sure that it is not prescribed in any national legislation. We are certainly not doing so in the Bill.

Andrew Turner: I welcome the fact that the Minister—I think that I understood him correctly—is not prescribing that a guest should pay a fee. However, I think that he is also not prescribing that a guest should
 not pay a fee, either for the card that entitles them to the introduction, which we call an inter-affiliation card, or for an introduction to a particular club. I question whether someone can properly be described as a guest who has paid a fee to the member undertaking the introduction. I tabled the amendment to divine that. I do not have a particularly strong view one way or the other, but I am aware that the Bill is a little vague in its definition.

Kim Howells: The term ''guest'' has never required definition under licensing law and that has never given rise, so far as any of us understand, to any particular difficulties. It is left to the rules of the club. If a scam is operating in some clubs that he knows of, whereby members actually charge a guest a fee, which they then harvest and take away, that is a nice little earner but it is certainly not the intention of the Bill.

Andrew Turner: I know of no such club in my constituency, although what happens on this island may be entirely different from what happens there.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend raises an interesting spectre when he talks about payment. He has mentioned payment to the introducing member or to the club. If the emphasis of the legislation as it pertains to clubs is that alcohol is supplied, not sold to club members—in other words, the club members own the liquor store—how can a guest go in and pay, perhaps over the bar, for liquor that should be supplied to members only?

Andrew Turner: I might need notice of that question if I am to get my head round it. On the face of it, it would seem unusual to expect a guest to pay for any drinks, refreshments or entertainment in a club. The Minister is describing neither a narrow course nor a winding course. On the issue in question, he is like someone who walks across open moorland without worrying too much about where the footpath is. Since he came to my constituency to launch the ''Walk the Wight'' walking festival about 12 months ago, he is welcome to describe such a broad course without regard to any particular boundaries because, like the law in the present case, a footpath can be immensely broad and have no discernible boundaries. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from what he said that guest has no known definition as far as such a person's eligibility to pay for refreshment is concerned.

Kim Howells: In this place, as you well know to your cost and I to mine, Mr. Gale, there is a big sign above Stranger's Bar that says, ''Strangers may not pay for drinks''. Over the years and in the course of research for the Committee stage of the Bill I have been in many clubs. In some, guests are allowed to go to a bar and pay for a drink, in others they are not and a member of that club must pay for the drink. What happens is down to the rules of the club. That is what is wonderful about clubs and why they are different from licensed premises. Clubs are very special places that make up their rules. Those rules are sometimes strange and sometimes sensible. However, I am sure that neither we nor the hon. Gentleman want the Bill to prescribe what clubs can and cannot do in relation to their guests.

Andrew Turner: The Minister is correct: I want neither to proscribe nor prescribe. What the Minister has said is a wonderful introduction to a later amendment of mine, so I will, with the leave of the Committee, not press the amendment.

Roger Gale: Amendment, by leave, not moved.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 321, in
clause 73, page 43, line 22, at end add— 
 '(3) Where the rules of a club prohibit the sale by retail of alcohol on any premises by or on behalf of the club to, or to a guest of, an associate member of the club, no condition may be attached to a club premises certificate in respect of the sale by retail of alcohol on any premises by or on behalf of the club so as to permit the sale by retail of alcohol on any premises by or on behalf of the club to, or to a guest of, an associate member of the club.'.
 This is a short amendment and follows on from the theme of prescribing and proscribing conditions for clubs and their guests. I have sought to table the mirror image of subsection (1). The amendment says that when a club for whatever reason chooses to prohibit the sale by retail of alcohol to a guest or an associate, there should be no opportunity for the licensing authority to overturn the prohibition in the club's rules or standing orders. Under subsection (1), if the club allows alcohol to be sold, provisions that prevent it from being sold should not be imposed as a condition by the licensing authority, whereas the amendment seeks to reverse the situation. A club might decide that only full members—not associate members—can buy alcohol. In such cases, nothing in the clause should enable a local authority to overturn what might be a long-standing and highly cherished rule of that club. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is neither prescription nor proscription in the Bill, as there is under subsection (1).

Kim Howells: Clause 73 provides that no conditions can be attached to a club premises certificate to prevent the sale by retail of alcohol to, or provision of regulated entertainment for, associate members of the club or their guests if they are permitted by the club's rules. This is to ensure that clubs that have applied for a certificate and that have met the various conditions, which include requirements about club rules and membership and that the club be operated in good faith, are not prevented from operating freely.
 As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 321 would add a provision that no conditions may be attached to a club premises certificate in respect of the sale by retail of alcohol to associate members of the club or their guests if this is prohibited by the rules of the club. The amendment is in the same vein as the provisions in clause 73, in that it seeks to protect the ability of clubs to govern their own affairs. However, it is not necessary. Licensing authorities will be able to attach conditions beyond those set out in the club operating schedule only if they are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives provided for in clause 72, which relate to the determination of an application for a club premises certificate. 
 There is no locus for licensing authorities to interfere with the affairs of clubs save where, following relevant representations, it is considered necessary to prevent the undermining of the licensing objectives of preventing crime, disorder and nuisance, 
 protecting children from harm, and maintaining public safety in the context of the qualifying club activities. For example, licensing authorities cannot interfere with club policies on the privileges enjoyed by full or associate members as defined in clause 67 of the Bill. 
 The amendment could be interpreted as an attempt to ensure that if clubs operate what some may consider discriminatory policies on the privileges enjoyed by associate members—again, as defined in the Bill—but not by the club's members, they will be safe from any conditions attached by a licensing authority wishing to address that. However, I stress for the hon. Gentleman that the licensing authority is given no power to do that in the Bill. 
 Given my assurances that licensing authorities will not have a free rein but will be able to attach conditions beyond those consistent with the club operating schedule only if relevant representations have been received and the conditions are necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. Clearly, if, according to the club rules, alcohol cannot be sold to just anybody, some of the licensing objectives will not be met anyway. The Minister has given me the assurances that I sought, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Prohibited conditions: plays

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 362, in
clause 74, page 43, line 30, at end add 'or to protect children'.
 The amendment is self-explanatory. It would add to subsection (2) an additional get-out to subsection (1), which allows the local authority to set a condition for the protection of children in club premises. The licensing authority would be entitled to judge what access children are likely to have to the premises in determining whether it was appropriate to set conditions as to the nature of plays, in exactly the same way as they are entitled to judge on the grounds of public safety. 
 We can think of several reasons, such as the use of fireworks on a stage, why a local authority may wish to prohibit access unless certain arrangements are made. Similarly, the local authority may wish to take account of the type of play if it felt that there may be access, especially to young children, and it wanted to set conditions concerning access to a premises. I am not suggesting that it may ban a play, but it may, for example, make provision for youngsters to attend only if accompanied by an adult or a club member. There is nothing in the legislation that requires a club member to be over 18. Without such an exemption, a licensing authority would not be able to say that younger children could not attend or participate in activities that are unsuitable for them.

Kim Howells: Clause 74 is important; it reflects clause 22, which we have already considered in connection with the premises licence. Under the clause, the licensing authority may not attach a condition to a club premises certificate that authorises the performance of a play of any nature, or the manner in which it is performed. I am talking about the content of plays.
 The clause does not prevent the licensing authority from attaching conditions that it considers necessary for the promotion of public safety. For example, conditions may refer to the use of pyrotechnics on a stage, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the recent, terrible disaster in the United States was the consequence of the use of pyrotechnics. Conditions may also refer to other licensing objectives when there has been relevant representations, or when the conditions are consistent with the operating schedule. For example, conditions may be attached to a club premises certificate that is considered necessary for the protection from harm of children. However, the licensing authority may not interfere with a director's interpretation of a play or the manner in which the cast present it. We are talking about plays as they are defined in paragraph 16 of schedule 2 and, therefore, about operas and ballet too. 
 Mr. Gale, you and I will recall the giant step of the Theatres Act 1968, which abolished the Lord Chamberlain's powers to censor plays. Those people who have seen ''Shakespeare in Love'' will realise that he was a powerful character. The Lord Chamberlain's powers were curtailed only in 1968—it is astonishing that they lasted as long as it did. That was a memorable day for the freedom of art and culture in this country, and it is still regarded by many as a step towards becoming a grown-up society. Indeed, the Bill is similar in that respect. The 1968 Act did not, of course, lead us into the abyss of sin predicted by some at the time. I must add, however, that many of us wandered around looking for that abyss, but unfortunately we did not find it. 
 Plays can be controversial. The controversy currently associated with ''XXX'' being presented in Hammersmith shows that such issues never go away. We would not, however, have challenging, inventive productions if producers lived in fear of censorship. We are a grown-up society and artistic freedom is important. As the newspaper debate on ''XXX'' has shown, we have laws that address indecency, obscenity and offence caused by plays that are considered to have gone too far. We do not need licensing law and licensing authorities to become engaged with matters relating to the content of plays. If clause 74 were removed entirely there would be the risk that following the making of representations, plays would be censored by the imposition of conditions that claimed to prevent disorder. That would be a step back into the dark ages for artistic freedom, and I cannot support that. 
 Clause 74 preserves this important freedom insofar as it relates to clubs, just as clause 22 preserves it for other premises, especially theatres. The clause does not prevent the conditions relating to the four licensing 
 objectives from being attached to club premises certificates, so long as they do not affect the nature of the play or the manner in which it would be performed. Only public safety overrides that rule, so conditions could be imposed to prevent an over-enthusiastic cast from hurling knives at an audience, for example.

Mark Field: Public safety is already one of the objectives. I understand the Minister¡¯s point, but surely he is making too much of the argument that without clause 74 the world would fall apart. The point made by hon. Friend is that we want another licensing objective added to the Bill: that is, the protection of children from harm.

Roger Gale: Order. Before we go much further down this road, I remind the Committee that we are discussing an amendment that refers to the protection of children, not to the removal of the clause from the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: It was the Minister¡¯s fault, but he got away with it.

Kim Howells: The clause does not prevent the conditions being attached to club premises. Amendment No. 362 would not remove the clause—I am trying to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—but would enable conditions relating to the nature of a play or manner in which it is performed to be imposed to protect children. I am afraid that that would take us into the dangerous ground of censorship. Should ''Hamlet'' be altered because the violence or references to incest might disturb children? Many of the greatest plays produced in this country could face censorship if the amendment were accepted.
 I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman¡¯s concern to protect children, but the amendment is not the way to go about it. The Bill would still permit the attaching of conditions when representations were made that they were necessary for the protection of children from harm.

Andrew Turner: The Minister says that the amendment is not the right way of protecting children. Will he assist me by telling me whether a licensing authority, while it is not permitted to attach a condition as to the nature of plays that may be performed or the manner of performing them, may attach a condition preventing children from entering the premises during the performance of such plays?

Kim Howells: I am not entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman means. If he means that the licensing authority could determine that a particular play was unsuitable for children and after discussion with the club—we are discussing clubs—could recommend that it should think about taking that action, I agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the club to do that. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from doing precisely that. However, the proposal that a committee made up of a local authority should decide whether the content of a play, its presentation and the acting in it is appropriate and whether it is appropriate for anyone to see it would be a dangerous move, which successive Governments have quite properly resisted. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also resist it.
 A condition prohibiting the admission of children to an ''XXX'' film, for example, would be possible, but censorship of the play itself or the manner of its performance would not be permitted under the Bill. That is an important difference. In the light of my comments and that assurance, I hope that amendment No. 362 will be withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: In the light of the Minister's most recent remarks that the licensing authority may prevent the admission of children to particular plays on club premises and, I presume, to particular plays on other licensed premises, but may not affect the manner of the performance of those plays, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I have a couple of short questions. I am puzzled as to why the provision is in the Bill. The only reasons for it seem to be in subsection (2), under which conditions can be imposed in accordance with other clauses, most of which are to do with public safety.
 We are talking about a club with a licence that allows it to admit a certain number of people for normal activities, and to extend the numbers for a dance, for example. The club might pack the chairs in and admit quite a lot of people to attend a public meeting. The issue is the premises themselves, and whether proper public safety requirements are set as a condition of the licence. Whether it is a play or a public meeting on stage is irrelevant. 
 The Minister has gone to great lengths to say that ''XXX'' can happily be shown in all the clubs in the land—and if that is not a green light to the company to take its show on the road, I do not know what is. If there are no restrictions as to the content of a play, I fail to see the relevance of including plays in the Bill at all. It would be interesting to hear how many clubs have asked the Minister to include the provision in the Bill because they are in the business of putting on plays regularly.

Kim Howells: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's assertion. As he probably knows, ''XXX'' is performed by a Catalan group from Barcelona, and there are not too many of those around. In fact, I do not believe that there is another one in Spain, so however many clubs would want that group to perform—[Hon. Members: ''They could go on tour.''] They could certainly go on tour; they are on tour at the moment—they are in Hammersmith.
 We discussed the importance of the clause in the debate on the previous group of amendments. The removal of clause 74 would allow licensing authorities to censor the content of plays if they so decided. Surely that cannot be appropriate in 2003. Although we hold local authorities in extremely high regard, they are certainly not the defenders of public morals.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No, I shall not; I want to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire first.
 The Bill, with clause 74, reflects existing law. I would include it simply because doing so would in itself be an important continuation of a prized part of public freedom. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire should think hard about trying to remove that right and allowing local authorities to censor the content of plays. That right was an important part of the Theatres Act 1968. 
 Theatre clubs stage plays. I do not know whether there is a theatre club in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I am thinking hard about that—but there are such clubs in many constituencies, especially in central London, and some of the most revolutionary and interesting advances in theatre have been made by them over the years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously arguing that if a committee of a local authority considered that a play was not in the best taste, or to its taste, it should be able to censor its content. That would certainly be a step back into the dark ages.

Andrew Turner: What I find surprising is the fact that the Minister has taken the step of including the clause, which prohibits the censorship of plays, but has not included any clause to prohibit the censorship of performances of dance or recorded music or exhibition of films. What is it about plays that they require such a provision?

Kim Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the British Board of Film Classification is a well-established authority on what ratings films should receive. Their advice is followed usually to the letter by local authorities. They have the ability to vary it a bit, and sometimes they do; in fact, they have been known to prevent a film from being shown in a particular area. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that that old and established practice works well in this country, as does the practice under discussion in relation to live theatre.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has made my case. There is a national scheme, but he sees no reason why local authorities should not amend it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Form of certificate and summary

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in
clause 76, page 44, line 19, leave out 'those premises' and insert 
 'such parts of the premises as are used for the qualifying club activities'.
 This is an ''as wide as the local authority needs to bother'' amendment, as is amendment No. 368 and the remainder of that group. It revolves around what is meant by the word ''premises''. Does it relate to the premises that is the subject of the licence or the club premises certificate, or to the premises more widely 
 drawn, namely the premises owned by the club, which might include parts that are not the subject of a premises certificate. I am not a freemason, but I wonder whether, for example, some parts of the masonic hall would be covered. I wonder whether a steward's flat, or a Conservative association office, situated in a club would be covered.

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is full of references to the word ''premises''. It is where licensable activities take place. A steward's flat or maisonette is not usually where licensable activities take place.

Andrew Turner: In that case, I have decided not to press the amendment.

Roger Gale: Amendment, by leave, not moved.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 368, in
clause 76, page 44, line 22, at end add— 
 '(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not provide for the certificate to contain any reference to the rules of the club other than to those which substantially affect the conduct of qualifying club activities.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 369, in 
clause 80, page 45, line 23, after 'rules', insert 
 '(where the alteration is to rules which substantially affect the conduct of qualifying club activities)'.
 Amendment No. 367, in 
clause 80, page 45, line 29, leave out 
 ', or alteration of the rules,'.
 Amendment No. 370, in 
clause 80, page 45, line 36, after 'or', insert '(subject to subsection (1))'.

Andrew Turner: Amendment No. 368 is along the same lines: why does the local authority need to know and have on record rules that do not significantly impact on the conduct of the qualifying club activities? It may surprise hon. Members to learn that once upon a time I was a member of the Oxford Union. Its rules were changed at least every term and often many times a term.

Mark Field: Usually, the rules for elections.

Andrew Turner: Yes, usually the rules relating to elections, not to licensable activities.

Mark Field: Rule 33.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend mentions rule 33. I believe that at one stage special efforts were made to ensure that rule 33 remained the same, despite the rearrangement of many of the rules before and after it.
 The purpose of the amendment is to ask whether it should be possible for a club secretary to be prosecuted and fined for failure to supply the local authority with the section of the rules on the conduct of the darts league, or any other section of the rules that has nothing to do with the licensable activity. I am not suggesting that there should be no requirements for the licensing authority to have access to those parts of the rules that refer to the conduct of the licensable activities, but I question whether it is necessary to go 
 to the extreme of making it a crime not to supply other and less relevant parts of the rules.

Kim Howells: Clause 76 provides that a club premises certificate and the summary of such a certificate must be in a prescribed form, namely a form prescribed in regulation by the Secretary of State. Those regulations must, in particular, provide for the certificate to specify the name of the club, its relevant registered address and the address of the premises to which the certificate relates, to include a plan of the premises, specify the qualifying club activities for which the premises may be used, and specify the conditions subject to which the certificate has effect. The Committee will note that the words do not refer to club rules. However, I accept that the wording is broad enough to permit some reference to the club rules in the regulations.
 Clause 80 provides the procedures for notification of a change in the name of the club or alteration of the club's rules. It further provides that on receiving such a notification, the licensing authority must amend the certificate accordingly. 
 Under amendment No. 368, the regulations could not provide for the certificate to refer to the club rules other than those that substantially affect the conduct of qualifying club activities. Amendments Nos. 369, 367 and 370 would provide that only an alteration of the club rules that substantially affects the conduct of qualifying club activities needs to be notified to the licensing authority. The offence provision relating to failure to notify would also be amended. In addition, the licensing authority is not required to amend the certificate to reflect a change in the club rules at all. 
 The focus on qualifying club activities is wrong. Qualifying club activities are set out in clause 1. They include, for example, the supply of alcohol to club members and guests. The focus of the club premises certificate will also be on the steps taken to promote the licensing objectives. They would be the conditions relating to crime and disorder, public safety, nuisance and the protection of children from harm. In many cases, the conditions may have been limited because the club rules laid down a code of discipline that persuaded the police that no additional conditions were necessary. 
 Alternatively, the club rules may have barred children and no conditions relating to children may have been necessary. Indeed, the maintenance of a club rule may well have emerged as a condition that is attached to the certificate for the promotion of one of the licensing objectives. Therefore, the way in which the club rules impact on the licensing objective is crucial and important. 
 Similarly, by concentrating on qualifying club activities, the amendments would also ignore changes that relate to the general conditions in clauses 62 and 64. The club must satisfy those conditions so that it can undertake qualifying club activities and certain of those qualifications relate directly to the club rules. For example, the two-day rule that we discussed at length earlier in Committee must be a club rule. It is an important rule, because it defines what is or is not a club. Therefore, a change in the rules could result in a 
 club ceasing to be a qualifying club under clause 88. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight recognises the significance of that because it would alter entirely the status of the club as a place in which people are allowed to consume alcohol. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we should not restrict the requirement to matters relating only to alterations that affect significantly the conduct of qualifying club activities. It would be too rigid an approach. I hope that, given my reassurances, he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has not really explained why it is necessary for the authority to have access to a host of rules that may have nothing to do with—to use a broader phrase—the club's approach to licensable activities. I accept that ''substantially affect'' may be too narrow for the Minister's taste but, if that is why he is objecting to the amendment—not because he believes that it is necessary for the licensing authority to have access to the whole club rule book—I understand his point.
 I do not find the hon. Gentleman's argument convincing nor am I persuaded that someone who fails to supply copies of amendments on the conduct of elections or the darts league should be guilty of an offence that on summary conviction is liable to a fine. That is the base from which I started with the amendments. It is unfortunate that I had to start at the end of the group, but I understand the Minister to be saying that it is not merely that my definition is too narrow, but that the licensing authority must have access to the whole range of the rules.

Kim Howells: Essentially, I am saying that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how clubs operate. The club may offer rules for the ladies' darts match: the local authority will not want to know about that, but it may want to know about other alterations that have taken place that could significantly affect, for example, the very legitimacy of that establishment or group of people being regarded as a club. Those are the issues that matter and I hope that he will accept, as he did with who is and is not a guest, that a club will have the leeway and freedom to alter rules about such issues and to interpret them in certain ways, but that the licensing authority must have access to important alterations that could affect or determine where that club stands in terms of licensing law.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that contribution. He has put on the record that what matters are important alterations that alter the way in which the club's activities take place, rather than the fact that the secretary forgot to put in place an amendment about the conduct of the darts league. I am sure that, in interpreting that, the courts will have regard to the Minister's words. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: I seek clarification. Subsection (1) states:
''A club premises certificate and the summary of such a certificate must be in the prescribed form.''
 However, subsection (2) states, 
''Regulations under subsection (1) must . . . provide for the certificate'',
 but does not say anything about providing for the summary. Can the Minister give the Committee a steer as to what form the summary might take and whether it will replicate all the information on the certificate? If it does replicate all that information, why bother? If it does not, what information does the Minister think is so critical that it must go on the summary? 
 My interpretation is that the summary will be a small document that could be used for all sorts of other purposes. If it is a very small document, it could be used by people who need to provide some evidence that they belong to a recognised club when they are visiting another club. We talked about that in clause 67: subsection (2)(b) states that the 
''other club is a recognised club''.
 If the summary is small, it could be included with the membership certificate of a member of a recognised club and would therefore be easily presentable on a visit to another club, so there would be no difficulties for the host club to establish the bona fides of that guest or associate member.

Kim Howells: I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but he must have missed the beginning of my answer to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
 The summary will be in the form prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. I will go through those regulations for the hon. Gentleman. They 
''must, in particular, provide for the certificate to—
(a) specify the name of the club and . . . its relevant registered address''.

Malcolm Moss: That is all written down in the Bill. Does the Minister not wish to save time?

Kim Howells: It is all written down: the hon. Gentleman can see it and I am glad that he can.
 The summary would set out the information relating to conditions—for example, that alcohol could be supplied only at the premises between certain hours—and it would have to be displayed at the premises. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman sees the importance of that, not only in terms of people quickly referring to it if they decide to do so—regardless of whether they are club members, their guests, the responsible bodies or the forces of law and order, under certain circumstances—so that they can check whether alcohol is being sold during the hours that have been agreed as part of that certificate. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Theft, loss etc. of certificate or summary

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 331, in
clause 77, page 44, line 34, leave out 'lost or'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 332, in
clause 77, page 44, line 34, leave out 'loss or'.

Malcolm Moss: These amendments will be quick to deal with. I cannot quite understand why clause 77(3)(b) gives as a condition that where a certificate or summary has been lost, the club must report that loss to the police. I can understand the need to report the theft of such a document, but if it is lost, what is the point of that? Will it waste police time? How many forms will the sergeant on the desk or the constable visiting the club have to fill in? In the end, what does it prove? How will it move us further towards establishing whether the club has a genuine certificate and who is responsible for its not being available?
 I have tabled the amendment to tease from the Minister why he considers it absolutely necessary for a loss to be reported to the police. The fact that a document is lost might not emerge for years, and that document might have passed through the hands of any number of secretaries. If so, pinning the blame will be almost impossible. It would be a complete irrelevance for that loss to be reported to the police after a period of years. They would not do anything about it; people report all sorts of losses—and thefts—to the police and get absolutely nowhere. I cannot see the justification for this piece of bureaucracy. It will simply tie up police time unnecessarily.

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman has told us, the amendment would remove the requirement in the Bill to notify the police of the loss of a club premises certificate. The amendments would be detrimental to the Bill for a number of reasons, and I shall list some of them.
 The Bill contains an offence of failure to produce a certificate without reasonable excuse. When the police make such a request, a club that is unable for whatever reason to lay its hands on the certificate might first claim that it is lost. It would therefore be to the club's own benefit to report such a loss to the police at the first possible instance so that that can be recorded and the club's risk of being susceptible to committing that offence correspondingly reduced. 
 In addition, unscrupulous individuals who acquire a lost certificate might doctor it and use it to carry on qualifying club activities, so such a loss is something about which the police should know. There are many reasons why unscrupulous club operators may wish to possess two club premises certificates. For example, they may wish to protect against conditions that might be imposed by future reviews. The requirement to notify the police of the loss of a certificate provides a disincentive against such an act. 
 The police tend to be the first port of call for lost property, and a requirement to notify the police could, in many circumstances, result in the rapid return of the certificate, despite the hon. Gentleman's cynicism about certain items being reported to the police as lost and never found again. I am sure that he would not want that to reflect on the massive efforts of the Cambridgeshire police in doing their best to track down missing objects. 
 Finally, the imposition of the burden, together with the licensing authority's ability to charge a fee for a replacement licence, provides an incentive for clubs to have a good look for the licence—perhaps even a good rummage down the back of the sofa—before claiming it lost. Although the hon. Gentleman is right to question any possible extension of bureaucracy, the importance of something as basic to the running of a business as a club certificate should be recognised. That certificate, so important to the club, to the responsible bodies and to the police in certain circumstances, should be properly looked after.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister's response was helpful in some respects. I have not quite perceived the workings of the criminal minds of those who go around thieving club certificates. Perhaps the Minister might explain how many go missing in any given year.

Mark Field: It occurred to me during the course of that exchange—perhaps my hon. Friend has some thoughts on the matter—that the danger of going down such a route is the fact that the first thing that any licensee would do is copy the certificate several times over. Those copies might be liable to theft, but the licensee would look after his interests by having various copies of the licence around that he could brandish in front of anyone from a local authority who might want to inspect it. That would defeat the very object that the Minister presumably has in mind.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully.
 It seems to me that the situation will arise only when the club committee or the secretary needs to produce the certificate for whatever reason, and they discover that they cannot lay their hands on it. At that point, because possession of the certificate is vital, as the Minister pointed out, they would immediately get on to the licensing authority and say, ''We can't find our certificate and we need a replacement. Of course we realise we'll have to pay for it.'' That would seem the normal scenario, rather than someone ringing up the police to say, ''By the way, we've lost our certificate.'' I am not sure how important the reporting of that loss would be if the discovery of it is likely to prompt the committee of a club to get in touch with the licensing authority immediately for a replacement.

Kim Howells: It was remiss of me not to answer a question that the hon. Gentleman posed initially, about who is responsible for the commission of the offence at any time. He put his finger on it: it is the current secretary, acting on behalf of the club, who is responsible. If I were the current secretary, I would worry about that.

Malcolm Moss: So would I, and that relates to an earlier point that we made strongly. We believe that the club secretary should be a senior officer of the club. The Minister felt otherwise, and the Committee did not accept our amendment. It seems to me that in such onerous situations, where there are substantial repercussions if individuals have been seen to be remiss in their duties, the person responsible ought to be a senior person. In the light of the Minister's
 comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Notification of change of name or alteration

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 365, in
clause 80, page 45, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 366, in 
clause 81, page 46, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

Andrew Turner: This amendment is self-explanatory. It would remove the power to charge a fee for simple notifications such as change of name, alteration of rules of the club, or change of relevant registered address. In view of the limited number of such changes, which we hope will continue to be the case, it is not likely to lead to great loss to local authorities, particularly in view of the Minister's earlier promise that only major changes that affect the licensing activities are likely to lead to litigation. I hope that the Minister will find the amendments acceptable.

Kim Howells: Clauses 80 and 81 set out that clubs must notify the relevant licensing authority of any change in the name or rules of the club, or in the address of the club. Such information is essential for enforcement, because licensing authorities and other relevant agencies must have accurate up-to-date information.
 Clubs are groups that are voluntarily established to engage in qualifying club activities, among other things. It is because of the nature of these activities, which impact on public safety, crime, disorder and nuisance, that clubs will have to continue to apply for certificates, as they currently have to apply for registration. Furthermore, it is because of the implications of club activities for safety, crime, disorder and nuisance that the Government's policy is to require fees from clubs to cover the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement, so that such costs do not fall to the taxpayer. 
 The amendments would remove the Secretary of State's power to set a fee for notifications of changes in the name or address of a club or in its rules. As I made clear previously, fees will be set at a fair and appropriate level that will allow licensing authorities to recover the costs of administration, inspection and enforcement, following full discussions with local government. To remove the power to prescribe fees for notifications would mean that local authorities would have to find the money to cover their costs elsewhere, perhaps by raising the fees for other applications or notifications—in effect, by asking the licensed trade to subsidise the club movement. That would be unfair and unacceptable.

Andrew Turner: Before the Minister develops that part of his argument, which I may come to later, will he confirm that a fee set under either of the subsections would cover not merely the administration of the receipt and the filing of the notification but also a share of the authority's overheads, inspections and other costs? I fear that that element would place an undue burden on a club that has merely changed its name or registered address.

Kim Howells: That is a very good question. The Committee has discussed at length how fees are to be set and what constitutes a local authority's overheads—that was the key word in the hon. Gentleman's questions. Clearly, a sports club or any other type of club should not have to carry the cost of street cleaning, for example, because we all pay council tax in order that such tasks can be properly paid for and carried out.
 The fees will be set at a level that allows the authority to recover its costs, but not to make a profit—there is a big difference. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave good examples of some of the costs that his local authority charged, and he argued cogently that because of variations the fees are bound to be higher in some areas than in others. There is no question about that. 
 The costs of the procedures set out in clauses 80 and 81 will be small, as they are for administrative charges. We anticipate that they will be about £10—we are not talking about large sums of money. In addition, clubs will rarely ask for such changes to be made to their certificates. I am trying very hard to think of clubs in my own constituency that have regularly changed their address. Some sports clubs have moved their grounds occasionally, but the place where alcohol is consumed and entertainment takes place usually remains the same, for obvious reasons. 
 The costs associated with the new system will not be burdensome for clubs. In fact, significant savings will result from the reductions in bureaucracy that the Bill will introduce. For example, it will do away with the need for hearings for the majority of applications for certificates. 
 I have tried on many occasions to set out as clearly as I can why it is important for fee levels to be prescribed centrally and not at local level. We need to ensure that, while all licensing authorities recover their costs, there is consistency and transparency for those applying for certificates or licences. That is important. To allow fees to be set locally might undermine that. After that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I may discuss the matter later, but for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 81 and 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Determination of application under section 82

Amendment made: No. 23, in 
clause 83, page 47, line 28, at end insert— 
 '( ) Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises) (requirements to be met in respect of club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol off the premises).'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 - Application for review of club premises certificate

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 333, in
clause 85, page 48, line 25, at end insert 
 'with the written support of one twentieth of the membership of that club'.
 I am sure that we are all familiar with several clubs; I will not mention any specifically and say whether they are Conservative, rugby, hockey, cricket or other types. In my experience, few clubs run completely smoothly all the time. The lead-up to annual general meetings is often a fraught time, at which jockeying for the position of president or chairman, or for membership of the committee, takes place. The amendment would put some flesh on the bones of the clause, subsection (1)(c) of which refers to instances when, with a club holding a club premises certificate, 
''a member of the club, may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a review of the certificate.''
 That seems to be saying that one member of a club can, for whatever vexatious or other reason, start to undermine the club by applying for a review. More than one member might be involved; a small group of people might be disillusioned, marginalised or have a gripe—justifiable in some cases—against those running the club. People often think that they can do a much better job that those who were elected to the committee. There is often backbiting and factionalism within clubs. All I am attempting to do with the amendment is to say that we should not allow a single member of a club or a small group of members who may have reasons of their own to challenge the running of the club to apply for a review, but instead allow only a reasonable number of members who see matters going wrong to make an application. 
 I accept that I have chosen an arbitrary number of members, but I regard 
''one twentieth of the membership of that club''
 as being a reasonable number or a reasonable percentage of people who decide that the club is not being run properly or legally. There is every justification for that group of people to come together and apply for a review. 
 I am happy to accept that one twentieth of the membership of the club is an arbitrary figure and am 
 willing to accept a figure that the Minister considers more specific and accurate. I am sure that he will suggest a figure when he responds to the debate. However, I feel strongly that no single member should set the ball rolling on such a review procedure. It would be difficult for a licensing authority to get to the bottom of a report by a single individual and it could lead to all sorts of problems for the club from what might often be a misleading and vexatious challenge. 
 We are all aware of situations in which accusations are made against people in everyday life. I have had cases in my surgeries of people being accused of something and the police being called in. If A says one thing and B says something to the contrary, the police must take time to investigate the matter. In the meantime, the people who have been maligned have a difficult time because of the old adage that there is no smoke without fire and it may be difficult for them to shake off the slur against them. Similarly, when an investigation takes place under the Bill, word will get out and that will be to the detriment of the club. No single individual should have that power.

Mark Field: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. There is a great danger that the exercise will be costly and time consuming and it should be carried out only when there is support from more than one individual. I suspect that the Minister will ask what should happen in a club of 20 members when one twentieth of the membership would be a single member—

Mark Hoban: As my hon. Friend will recollect, a qualifying club must have 25 members.

Mark Field: On that basis, it would be one and a quarter. If a club had only 40 members, it is arguable that only one, or perhaps two, would be required, depending on which way the fraction fell. There is little doubt that given the time-consuming exercise and difficulties that would arise if there was a constant push for a review of a club's arrangements, it makes sense to have a minimum threshold. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has suggested an arbitrary threshold, but, none the less, it is sensible to suggest that there should be some level of support for the procedure rather than just a single member being able to hold a club to ransom.

Kim Howells: The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was right to point out that there are frequently feuds between clubs and internal wars. I know from the two-year attempt to reorganise Welsh rugby that there has been open warfare and guerrilla activity within clubs and that that can become very serious.
 I understand that the limit in the amendment is probing and I do not intend to comment on the merits of one twentieth, one tenth or whatever. However, I want to make it clear that the Government have no intention of limiting the rights of club members to call for a review in the way that amendment No. 333 suggests and we cannot, therefore, accept it. 
 Subject to the protections that we have provided at subsection (4) that a ground may be excluded if it is frivolous, vexatious or a repetition, club members 
 should be free to use the review process to raise relevant concerns. Such concerns are rendered no more or less important by the fact that one member or 10, 20 or 100 members wish to raise them, provided that they are relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives and that they are not frivolous, vexatious or a repetition. The Bill does not say that a local resident must have the support of a certain number of his or her neighbours to be able to call for a review. Indeed, the Government would be fiercely criticised if we had argued for that. There is no reason why different considerations should apply to club members. 
 If we accepted this amendment, we would risk exposing the fair, open and transparent review system that is contained in the Bill to undue political influence. Requiring the applicant to gather a certain amount of support is akin to the nomination procedure for an election, which the Government consider is entirely inappropriate in this case. 
 Having heard that argument, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that, although I do not want to give any strength to the elbow of vexatious or feuding individuals, there must be a right in this regard, and that to curtail it would create an inconsistency in the way in which we regard the right of individual residents to put forward an objection to those licensable activities.

Malcolm Moss: Am I right in thinking that these clauses are new legislation, and that there is nothing in existing legislation regarding—in this case—clubs that enables members or a member to ask in this way for a review of a club certificate?

Kim Howells: I am unaware that there is anything in current legislation that prevents a single member of a club from issuing a complaint or objection to something that a club does. In that respect, this is not breaking new ground. It simply confirms that that right exists, should an individual club member wish to use it.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister says that nothing would prevent a member from approaching the licensing authority—or whoever—in that way, but the Bill is specifying that right, which gives it a lot more importance and impetus. I can see situations arising in which vexatious individuals might attempt to undermine the authority of the committee of a club. However, during an investigation, it will take time for a licensing authority to conclude that
''the ground is frivolous or vexatious''.
 In many cases, it will not be able to ascertain that quickly, particularly if the accusation is of financial impropriety. That may require the club to yield up its accounts and a full investigation to take place, simply on the basis of suspicion on the part of a member. It may well be that at the end of all that the grounds are vexatious and there is no real reason for the challenge, but the damage will have been done by then.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is curious that although, earlier, a justification was offered for placing a higher level of demand for evidence of good faith on profit-making enterprises
 than on non-profit-making enterprises, the Minister has avoided that entirely on this occasion? He has avoided accepting my hon. Friend's argument. Clubs are by definition non-profit-making: in many cases they are run not by paid professionals but by volunteers, many of whom are retired people who would not find it easy to deal with the kind of bureaucratic investigation that might follow from such a malign complaint.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is inconsistency in the Government's approach to these matters. The whole reason for separating clubs from other licensed premises is their special nature. There is a requirement to establish that a club was set up in good faith—and, presumably, that it is being run in good faith.
 As I have said more than once during this discussion, I am fearful that one or two members who have a gripe can make a false accusation that needs in-depth scrutiny, analysis and investigation. That may prove to be vexatious, but I can see no penalties on those individuals for raising that complaint. There is no comeback on them, but in the meantime the club has been unnecessarily put through the grinder. The whole point about saying that a group of members should get together, whether it be one twentieth—5 per cent.—or less is that at least there will be common ground within the club that serious problems need looking at, rather than only one member being allowed to apply for a review. 
 The amendment would not curtail the rights of the individual because the person would examine the Bill if it were so amended and say, ''I must get a group of people to support me in what I want to do.'' If I were the individual who considered that matters were going wrong, my first impulse would be to say to the committee, ''By the way, this is not being done right.'' If I were rejected by the committee, I would talk to other members of the club, get together a group and say, ''Look, we are not receiving the right answers from the club committee, so the law gives us the right to ask the licensing authority to consider the matter in more detail.'' I am not asking for a great group of people to take such action, but allowing one member to do so could cause problems. I am not convinced by the Minister's response. Unless he wants to answer any of my points, I may call for a Division on the amendment.

Kim Howells: If the hon. Gentleman wants to call a Division, so be it, but there are important issues further on in the Bill on which the knife is likely to fall at some stage. The individual whom he accused of being vexatious may not be vexatious. It may be the case that that person cannot convince anyone that something is wrong at the heart of the club. He or she may be right. For us to curtail that person's ability to alter the position is not only inconsistent with the way in which we regard the ability of a single resident to object to licensed premises, but is a denial of something that is important to the life of a club.

Malcolm Moss: I am persuaded by the Minister's comments that we have to discuss many other
 matters, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Determination of application for review

Amendment made: No. 24, in 
clause 86, page 49, line 42, at end insert— 
 '( ) Subsection (3) is subject to section (club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises) (requirements to be met in respect of club premises certificate authorising supply of alcohol off the premises).'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 334, in
clause 86, page 49, line 44, leave out '(not exceeding three months)'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 335, in
clause 88, page 50, line 38, after 'authority', insert 
 ', either as a result of a determination under section 86, or resulting from the licensing authority's own investigation involving a hearing, as under section 86(2),'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendment refers to a situation in which a review has been considered and determined, after which time the licensing authority is required to take certain steps. Under subsection (4)(a) or (b), if one of the steps is either ''to modify'' or
''to exclude a qualifying club activity'',
 the authority may provide 
''that the modification or exclusion is to have effect for only such period (not exceeding three months) as it may specify.''
 Removing ''not exceeding three months'' would give the local authority the responsibility to determine the period on the basis of the evidence before it, the importance of the situation and the seriousness of the charges that have been determined. It would give it flexibility. My proposal is a probing amendment. Why have the Government seen fit to include a period ''not exceeding three months'' in the Bill? If a serious indictment or charge had been found wanting, surely a period of more than three months may be in order. 
 However, if the licence were modified and certain steps were excluded, and the club says, ''Okay, we understand that we have done wrong. We will put such matters right immediately,'' surely such flexibility would give the licensing authority the ability to say, ''As soon as you prove that to us, be it in three months or three weeks, we will reconsider the matter and alter the situation.'' The amendment is by way of saying that there should be flexibility in the Bill in case the period exceeds three months for any reason. 
 Amendment No. 335 to clause 88 relates to the club ceasing to be a qualifying club. If the relevant licensing authority thinks that a club does not satisfy the conditions for being a qualifying club, it can give notice to it and withdraw the appropriate certificate. The determination that leads to that takes place under clause 85(1), under which a review of the certificate can be instigated by 
''(a) an interested party, 
 (b) a responsible authority, or 
 (c) a member of the club''. 
We have just had the debate about the member of the club. 
 I can envisage a situation arising in which none of the groups had been informed that there was a problem with the club and its compliance with the law or the conditions on its certificate. Also, we should allow the licensing authority to instigate its own investigation if it has noticed a problem, rather than waiting for someone else to come along and say that there was a problem. I know that the definition of a responsible authority under an earlier clause alludes to certain departments of local authorities, particularly environmental heath, but I am not sure whether it allows the authority to begin an investigation or review of its own volition. 
 What I have said under the amendment is that the authority must hold a hearing, which is provided for in clause 86(2). The authority can start with the review. It holds the hearing, which is conducted in the normal way according to the due processes outlined in earlier clauses, and comes to a determination in the usual way. The amendment would give it the power to intervene and hold a review and come to a determination of its own volition.

Kim Howells: In setting out why we oppose amendment No. 334, I must make it clear that the clause allows licensing authorities to modify permanently the conditions of a club premises certificate, or indeed to exclude club-qualifying activity permanently from the certificate following a review. It provides, however, that where the licensing authority does not believe that a permanent change is necessary and wishes to take such steps for a limited time only, the period cannot exceed three months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that that is not a fixed period; the licensing authority cannot go beyond three months.
 If permanent modifications of conditions or exclusions of activities are necessary to promote the licensing objectives, those are the steps that should be taken. When a licensing authority does not believe that permanent modification or exclusion is necessary—for example it might not have been necessary for the modification or exclusion to have effect while the club takes action to amend its practices—there should be a limit on the period that a licensing authority can specify for the steps to have effect. 
 The result of removing the limit might be for licensing authorities to specify a period of several years, but such a period would be tantamount to a permanent step. If that is what is required, that is the step that the licensing authority should take, openly and clearly. Either the club is causing such a problem that permanent measures are necessary or it is not, in which case the steps should have effect for a relatively short time. We could argue about whether three months is the right limit or whether it should be two or four months. We believe that we have the balance right. 
 Clause 88 sets out the circumstances under which a club ceases to be a qualifying club. Subsection (1) provides that if a club holds a club premises certificate and it appears to the licensing authority that the club 
 does not satisfy the conditions for being a qualifying club in respect of a qualifying club activity to which the certificate relates, the authority must give a notice to the club withdrawing the certificate so far as it relates to that activity. The conditions include the general conditions set out in clause 62, such as that the club is established in good faith as a club, and the additional conditions that must be satisfied if the club wishes to supply alcohol, such as those requiring the purchase and supply of alcohol to be managed by a committee. 
 Amendment No. 335 would provide that a licensing authority could withdraw a club premises certificate if it believed that a club did not satisfy the conditions for being a qualifying club in respect of a qualifying club activity only if it came to its decision following the determination of an application for review under clause 86 or following an investigation involving a hearing as a result of an application for review. 
 The special provisions in the Bill for qualifying clubs, which reflect the existing provisions for registered clubs, have been preserved because we recognise the important community role that such clubs play. The fact that they operate under a different regime to other licensed premises is, however, reflected in the conditions that they must satisfy to be considered as qualifying clubs. The conditions are not particularly onerous, but they are important. 
 I see no reason to limit the ability of a licensing authority to withdraw a club's certificate in respect of a qualifying club activity such that it can do so only after a determination of a review or as a result of an investigation related to a review. If it becomes clear to the licensing authority at any time that the club is not meeting the necessary conditions, it should be able to take appropriate action and withdraw the club's certificate and, as a result, the privileges that it enjoys. 
 For instance, what if an upstanding club member who was unhappy that the club did not satisfy the conditions set out in the Bill, perhaps by allowing persons to be admitted to membership without an interval of two days between application and admission, informed the licensing authority but, for whatever reason, did not want to apply for a review? Do hon. Members believe that in such circumstances the licensing authority should be forced to sit by hoping that someone will ask for a review of the certificate? That could take some time—it may never happen—and, under the amendment, no action could be taken until a hearing or investigation had taken place. A more immediate course of action must be available to the authority to ensure that clubs satisfy the conditions set out in the Bill or have their special rights removed. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88 - Club ceasing to be a qualifying club

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 336, in
clause 88, page 51, line 22, leave out 'month' and insert 'week'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 337, in 
clause 94, page 54, line 4, leave out '14' and insert '21'.
 Amendment No. 338, in 
clause 94, page 54, line 13, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
 Amendment No. 270, in 
clause 176, page 97, line 39, after 'be,', insert 'unlawfully'.
 Amendment No. 271, in 
clause 176, page 97, line 43, after 'requested', insert 
 'and so often as reasonably required'.
 Amendment No. 272, in 
clause 176, page 98, line 1, after 'person', insert 
 'who, whether so requested or not, has produced such evidence as is referred to in subsection (2) and is'.
 Amendment No. 273, in 
clause 176, page 98, line 3, after 'if', insert 
 'he knows that a person is an authorised person, and that authorised person has produced to him such evidence as is referred to in subsection (2), and'.
 Amendment No. 274, in 
clause 176, page 98, line 3, leave out second 'an' and insert 'that'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendments deal in the main with police investigations and entry into premises. Amendment No. 336 to clause 88 would leave out ''month'' and insert ''week.'' That is where a justice of the peace is satisfied that there is a problem and has issued a warrant authorising a constable to enter premises. In such a situation, having given a warrant, why allow the constable a month to do the search? A week seems to be much more sensible, bearing in mind that word would get out and all the evidence might have disappeared by the end of the month. The amendment would ensure that the police do the searching that the warrant justifies.
 Amendments Nos. 337 and 338 deal with clause 94, under which entry and inspection must take place at a reasonable time of day not more than 14 days after the making of an application. We would change that to 21 days. Subsections (7) and (8) allow a seven-day extension, so one can go from 14 to 21 days in certain circumstances. It therefore seems simpler to allow up to 21 days anyway and remove subsections (7) and (8).

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is pushed for time. He knows that there is a terrible law that says that if we have two weeks for something, we will do it in two weeks but if we know that we have three weeks, we will take three weeks. That seems to apply no matter what part of life we look at.

Malcolm Moss: That does not mean that we have to write that into legislation to accommodate it, does it?
 If we are giving people 21 days anyway, we should say 21 days and make that the limit.
 Amendments Nos. 270 to 274 deal with clause 176 and are, if not consequential amendments, related to those to which I have been speaking. Their thrust is to ensure that when a constable or an authorised person from the licensing authority turns up at a premises as part of an investigation they do so properly and reasonably. Clause 176 (1) seems to give them drop-in rights—if I may call them that—by which they can literally drop in at any time to check on things. If that is the case, they should, as stated in amendment No. 271, produce evidence of their authority as often as is reasonably required. Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 would then make it an offence for any person in a club not to accept the bona fide evidence of those people and to obstruct their work.

Kim Howells: Let us remember what clause 176 does. It sets out the right of entry for a constable or authorised person into licensed premises to ensure that any licensable activities at that premises are carried on under suitable authorisation. That is one of the Bill's key enforcement measures. The amendments would weaken or undermine those important provisions.
 Amendment No. 270 would prevent a constable or authorised person from exercising his or her right of entry into licensed premises under clause 176 except if he or she had reason to believe that licensable activities were being carried on unlawfully at the licensed premises. Although that might, at first sight, seem sensible, it makes the whole system nonsensical. The rights of entry provided under clause 176 are designed specifically to ensure that licensable activities are not being carried on unlawfully. That is both sensible and reasonable. 
 Amendment No. 270 would hamstring completely the enforcement authorities. The normal, fair process of routine inspection, under which compliance with the conditions of a licence is checked, would go out of the window. It is not hard to envisage unscrupulous individuals hiding themselves and their activities underground. By concealing themselves in that way they may be unlikely to give grounds for a constable or a responsible authority to have reason to believe that licensable activities were being carried on unlawfully. That may create a new generation of speakeasies. Some people might find that desirable. In fact, one hon. Member said, ''Hear, hear.'' However, the effect on licensing objectives would be disastrous. For that reason I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. 
 Amendment No. 271 refers to clause 176(2), which says: 
''An authorised person exercising the power conferred''
 under the clause 
''must, if so requested, produce evidence of his authority to exercise the power.''
 The amendment would require the authorised person to produce evidence 
''so often as reasonably required.''
 The amendment is unnecessary because the production of evidence of identification on request by local authority and other officers has a long history and 
 works well. The provision in the Bill is in similar terms to that which applies elsewhere and there is no need to depart from the standard framework for licensing. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. 
 Amendment No. 272 would require an authorised person to produce evidence of authority before reasonable force was used in the exercise of the rights of entry under clause 176. That is unnecessary. The requirement under subsection (2) is simple; the authorised person must provide evidence of identification if asked to do so. I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for the amendment to be withdrawn. 
 Under amendments Nos. 273 and 274, a person would commit the offence of intentionally obstructing an authorised person in the exercise of his or her powers under clause 176 only if they knew that he or she was an authorised person and that person had produced evidence of his or her authority to exercise the powers. The amendments are unnecessary for reasons similar to those I gave on amendment No. 272: the authorised person must produce such evidence if asked to do so. We believe that that is sufficient. 
 Amendments Nos. 336, 337 and 338 deal with club premises. The rights of entry to and the inspection of clubs differ from those for licensed premises because of the special role of the club movement and the different considerations that arise where public access is controlled and alcohol is supplied other than for profit. Qualifying clubs will benefit from a lighter touch under the Bill. Amendment No. 336 would reduce from one month to one week the length of time in which a constable may enter and inspect a club premises after the issue of a warrant authorising them to do so. The warrant would be issued by a justice of the peace who should be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a club had ceased to meet the qualifying conditions. I cannot accept the amendment because it would unacceptably restrict authorities in the exercise of their duties. Furthermore, as with clause 88, constables are permitted to enter a club premises only after a JP issues a warrant authorising them to do so. The Bill by no means offers unlimited rights of entry. 
 Amendment No. 337 would increase from 14 to 21 days of the application being made the period of time in which an authorised person or constable may enter and inspect a club premises following an application for a club premises certificate, or an application for the variation, or review, of a certificate. Amendment No. 338 would remove the provisions for extending the time available for inspection following such an application for up to seven days, were that to be requested by a responsible authority. 
 I appreciate that the amendments might appear sensible if taken together. However, the potential effect would be to lengthen and slow down the process of dealing with applications. As drafted, the Bill gives a period of up to 14 days from an application for the inspection of premises. It also provides that where reasonable steps have been taken to inspect premises within that 14-day period but it has not proved possible for the inspection to take place, an extension 
 of up to seven days may be granted by the licensing authority, on the application of a responsible authority. As I have said, we want to set time scales that are reasonable for the administrative and enforcement bodies and the applicants, to ensure that applications are processed efficiently and in a timely manner. I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees fit to withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Fees

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 328, in
clause 90, page 52, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(5) Any regulations prescribing a fee in accordance with subsection (1)(b) or (3)(b) shall provide for the fee payable by a voluntary sports club to be not more than the amount equal to one tenth of the fee payable by any other form of club. 
 (6) For the purposes of this section ''voluntary sports club'' means a club the main purpose of which is to provide facilities for, and promote participation in, one or more sports designated for that purpose in the regulations or by reference to a list of sports maintained by a body specified in the regulations.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 329, in 
clause 172, page 95, line 10, after 'effect,', insert— 
 '(ff) to the extent that it would otherwise constitute the provision of regulated entertainment, at the premises of a voluntary sports club,'.
 Amendment No. 330, in 
clause 172, page 95, line 18, at end insert— 
 '( ) For the purposes of subsection (1)(ff) ''voluntary sports club'' means a club the main purpose of which is to provide facilities for, and promote participation in, one or more sports designated for that purpose in an order made by the Secretary of State or by reference to a list of sports maintained by a body specified in such an order.'.

Malcolm Moss: These are important amendments. One of the most unsatisfactory results of timetabling is that Committee members can never time their run to reach the more important amendments within the allotted time.
 Amendment No. 328 sets out regulations prescribing fees for voluntary sports clubs. Proposed new subsection (6) defines what we mean by voluntary 
 sports clubs and amendments Nos. 329 and 330 are consequential amendments to clause 172. The Government have not consulted all the groups and organisations in the sports world that they should have done on the impact of the legislation. Under the new legislation, non-profit-making sports clubs throughout the country will be liable to pay what to many will be unaffordable fees to obtain an entertainment licence. 
 Under the current law, non-profit-making sports clubs pay about £15 every three years to obtain a basic alcohol licence. Although not all of those clubs can provide bar facilities, for those that can it is an effective way to complement the fundraising necessary to maintain the club, and it can be used as a social facility on match days and sporting occasions. For those clubs that do not have facilities but might want to provide for certain events, the hassle of obtaining a licence, as well as the increase in costs, might make that an unfeasible endeavour. 
 The amendments would ensure that the Government continue to protect the small, non-profit-making sports clubs by maintaining the current fee for obtaining a licence and not imposing an increase of about 50 times the cost of a licence for such bodies. In addition, we seek assurances from the Government that clubs will continue to be exempt from requiring an entertainment licence. As we well know, these clubs are run by volunteers whose continuing efforts and hard work ought to be recognised by the Government and in particular the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the very architects and instigators of the legislation.

Kim Howells: Having regard to the strength of the argument that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the Committee—

Malcolm Moss: I had not finished.

Roger Gale: Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was giving way.

Kim Howells: He was. Given that we do not have a great deal of time to debate this important clause, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am agreeable to considering amendments Nos. 328, 329 and 330.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful. I beg to ask leave with withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 91 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Seven o'clock till Thursday 8 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock.